Sunday, August 26, 2012

Article from the German Communist Party: Of Saviors and Liquidators: V. I. Lenin, Alvaro Cunhal, Sam Webb Hans-Peter Brenner, German Communist Party

July 9, 2011

On a “Feature” of Coping with a Political Defeat

Certain
Features of the Historical Development of Marxism is a work of Vladimir
Ilyich Lenin. In it he dealt with the consequences of the defeat of the
first Russian revolution of 1905. At that time, many party members
(including many recently enrolled intellectuals) left the revolutionary
party in droves. Soon after that, the farewell to Marxism, which we too
experienced in 1989-1991, became the fashion.

As
a reflection of this change there occurred profound disintegration,
confusion, shaking and swaying of all sorts - in a word, there appeared a
very serious internal crisis of Marxism. The resolute defense against
this decay, the determined and persistent struggle for the basics of
Marxism, again came on the agenda.

That was Lenin's diagnosis.

It
was -- and still is -- important for us German Communists to examine
what conclusions other Communist parties later drew from the defeat of
socialism in Europe and the USSR.

First
of all, I think about the leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba,
which had already adjusted to this disaster before the shameful end of
Mikhail Gorbachev who drove to ruin Soviet socialism, his country, and
his party. Cuba -- the country and the Communist Party – understood
this: the harsh “drought” of the Special Period would govern the 1990s
and early 2000s. Without its revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist character,
the Communist Party of Cuba would have given up its socialist goal.

Self-awareness or Self-doubt?
I recall one Communist leader, prominent but, unfortunately, less noted
in Germany, Alvaro Cunhal (1913-2005), the longtime general secretary of
the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP). At the time of the fascist
Salazar dictatorship, Cunhal’s underground struggle, his inspiring and
mobilizing role during and after the 1974 victory of the "Carnation
Revolution,” as well as his shrewd leadership, are legendary.

The
advance of the socialist stage of the revolutionary upheaval in
Portugal was stopped by the united and coordinated actions of U.S.
imperialism, NATO, the EU, the main European imperialist states,
international social democracy, and domestic reaction.

Thanks
to his personal resourcefulness, Cunhal embarked upon a strategic
retreat. With a party united by a Marxist-Leninist program, he achieved
the preservation of the PCP and its mass influence. He developed its
clear profile, which it keeps today, as a revolutionary party of the
working class, peasants and other working people.

To
this day, his conclusions about the character of a Communist Party at
the beginning of the 21st century are well worth reading. In his 2001
work, As Seis de Caracteristicas Fundamentais do Partido Comunista (The
Six Basic Features of a Communist Party) Cunhal goes into the internal
situation of the Communist movement at the beginning of the 21st
century. He writes: The international Communist movement, and the
parties from which it is made up, were subject to profound changes as a
the result of the collapse of the USSR and other socialist countries and
capitalism's success in its rivalry with socialism. There were parties
who denied their militant past, their class nature, the goal of a
socialist society, and revolutionary theory. In some cases, they were
transformed into system-integrated parties, and they eventually
disappeared from the scene.

In 2011 as well, this finding is relevant and correct.

Features of a Communist Party
The Communist movement as a whole - Cunhal went on – has achieved
flexibility in its composition and reached new limits. Admittedly,
though there is no model of a Communist Party, nonetheless "six basic
features can reveal a Communist party, regardless of whether the party
bears that name or another.
Briefly, their traits could include:
1. To be a party completely independent of the interests, ideology, pressure and threats of capitalist forces;
2. To be a party of the working class, the working people, in general, the exploited and oppressed;
3. To be a party with a democratic internal life and a unified central leadership;
4. To be a party which is both internationalist and which defends the interests of its country;
5. To be a party that defines its goal as the building of a society
which knows neither exploited nor exploiters, a socialist society;
6. To be the bearer of a revolutionary theory, the theory of
Marxism-Leninism, which not only makes the explanation of the world
possible, but also shows the way to change it.

In
its simplicity and plainness, the last point sounds like it is of
little interest, just as the other five points appear to include too
little that is new. And yet these "self-evident truths" are not
self-evident truths - not even for Communists. But more of that later.

Classics Taken at their Word
Cunhal made available to us the following explanation for his six
points. It is cited here, in more detail, because of its uniqueness and
distinctiveness:

All
the slanderous, punishing, anti-Communist campaigns are lies.
Marxism-Leninism is a living, anti-dogmatic, dialectical, creative
theory, which is further enriched by practice and by its responses to
new situations and phenomena, which is its job. It drives the practice
of enrichment and development, dynamically and creatively using the
lessons of practice.

Marx
in Capital, and Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, analyzed
and defined the basic elements and characteristics of capitalism.

In
the second half of the 19th century, however, the development of
capitalism underwent an important amendment. Competition led to
concentration and monopoly. We owe to Lenin and his work Imperialism,
the Highest Stage of Capitalism the definition of capitalism at the end
of the 19th century. These theoretical developments are of exceptional
value. And the value of research and systematization of theoretical
knowledge is rated as high.

In
a synthesis of extraordinary clarity and rigor, a famous article by
Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism explains
it. In the philosophy of dialectical materialism, historical materialism
is its application to society. Political economy is the analysis and
explanation of capitalism and exploitation, and the theory of surplus
value is the cornerstone for understanding exploitation. The theory of
socialism is the definition of the new society, the abolition of
exploitation of man by man.

During
the 20th century and the social transformations accompanying it, much
new theoretical thinking was added. However, there also was scattered
and contradictory thinking which made it difficult to distinguish what
is theoretical development and where it is a question of revisionist
deviation from principles. Hence the urgent need for debate without
preconceptions and without making truths absolute. It's not about the
search for conclusions deemed to be final, but rather the
intensification of joint reflection." Quoted from: www.kommunisten.ch

Cunhal
is now dead six years. His party, the PCP, however, considers him not
an idol on a pedestal, a "historical figure" whose thoughts and ideas
slowly but gradually have been forgotten. Today, his theoretical and
programmatic conclusions determine the path and self-understanding of
the PCP. But, unfortunately, it is quite different elsewhere.

On Slippery Ground The
current example of this is the thinking of the chairman of the CPUSA,
Sam Webb. Political Affairs, the theoretical organ of his party,
published in February this year under the title: "A Party of Socialism
in the 21st Century: What It Looks Like, What It Says, and What It
Does." It has now appeared in German on the news portal of the German
Communist Party's website, www.kommunisten.de

Why are Webb's theses of interest beyond the CPUSA?

For
example, why did the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), despite the
demands of the controversies and class struggles raging in that country,
to which it devotes so much energy and combativeneness, send a really
dramatic appeal To the members and cadres of the Communist Party USA! To
U.S. militant workers! It was also addressed to all the Communist and
Workers' Parties, "in order to protest against these theses."

And now, why do German Communists deal with the Webb theses too?

Sam
Webb stressed at the beginning of his 29 theses, each different in
detail and very different in theoretical significance, that he was on
slippery ground. The publisher of the theoretical journal of the CPUSA,
Political Affairs, also knew well what he was getting involved with by
posting it. The preface that introduces the article makes this clear. "The
following article represents only the views of its author. It doesn't
necessarily reflect the official views of any organization or
collective... "

And
Sam Webb, too, seemed to suspect, that there would be some critics
reading his theses who would be reminded of the old proverb whereby the
overconfident donkey will go out onto the ice and dance, i.e., take
unreasonable risks.

At
least this would apply to those who judge mental capers not by their
intricate originality and self-circling conclusions, but rather by the
donkey’s ability to keep its balance and pursue a course that will give
meaning to its (political) acrobatics.

Apparently,
to avoid such criticisms, Webb emphasized in the introduction that it
was a "draft," an unfinished manuscript, and that "readers will surely
note inconsistencies, contradictions, silences and unfinished ideas."

This
is all too ostentatious modesty, and the ensuing fishing for
compliments belies the altogether clear and complete implications of the
theses.

Communists without Lenin In
the end Sam Webb delivers a very consistent idea, although it is not
original. A letter in the German Communist Party weekly Unsere Zeit has
already pointed out:

What
is so exciting, new and important for us in these theses of Comrade
Webb...? I cannot see it. Readers of Marxistische Blaetter already read
and evaluated the core of his "Reflections on Socialism" in mid-2008 (In
Focus: International Marxism, March 2008). And in our party, since the
mid to late 1980s, we have discussed other theories (for example, the
reduction of Marxism to a mere method, or the orientation to”Marxism
without Lenin." Not only did we do this thoroughly, but we developed
collective responses crowned with a new party program'. Lothar Geisler,
"Theses Not New," Unsere Zeit, July 1, 2011, p. 12)

In
fact, most of the 29 theses do not contain much that is new. Though he
writes of merely one in the article mentioned in Marxistische Blaetter
from 2008, in its approaches, the quixotic intellectual journey already
discernible in 2008 continues, but it now ends as a break with central
points of Communist theory — socialism, and the doctrine of the Party.
He runs aground on the shoals of a left–pluralist Marxism; or the
earlier "Eurocommunism," or the current democratic socialism of the
German Left Party, European Left, respectively.

I
mention particularly the rejection of the theory of Marx, Engels and
Lenin as a unified, revolutionary theory of the working class.

What is original here is a hitherto less well-known chauvinistic undertone. As noted in his Thesis #2:
As for "Marxism-Leninism," the term should be retired in favor of simply
"Marxism." For one thing, it has a negative connotation among ordinary
Americans, even in left and progressive circles. Depending on whom you
ask, it either sounds foreign or dogmatic or undemocratic or all of
these together.
Granted, Lenin was no Russian exile finding safety in the U.S., taking
out U.S. citizenship, and Americanizing his first or last name - perhaps
to Sam Cook or Sam Smith.

But do ordinary Americans deem Karl Marx to be a fellow American?

And
does Marxism really sound so terrifically American, that perhaps Sarah
Palin herself, the icon of ordinary Americans, understands by Marxism a
sweetness and innocence, causing her patriotic sentiment to peal like a
church bell?

Webbism? So the real test awaits Jim and Jane, ordinary Americans.

Shakespeare's Macbeth comes to my mind, with its sigh, almost a curse: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

But the meaning of Webb's theses is more than noisy fury.

We
long-suffering European Communists are quite accustomed to this
counterposing of Marx and Lenin, and the elimination of the latter from
what is coyly called "Marxism" or - even more subtly - "scientific
socialism."

A Diminished Picture of History In
the early 1980s, the German Communist Party grappled intensively with a
forerunner of today's "Webbism," the idea of a Western "plural"
Marxism, and a Marxism without Leninism. It arose in the study and
seminar rooms of the West Berlin professor Wolfgang Fritz Haug.

At
the same time, the highly relevant Marxist journal Argument was being
published (compare Marxism. Ideology. Politics. Crisis of Marxism, or
Crisis of the Argument? Frankfurt am Main, 1984. Editors: Hans Heinz
Holz, Thomas Metscher, Joseph Schleifstein, and Robert Steigerwald.)

The
second argument pushed by Webb for the amputation of Marxism-Leninism
is even less original. And it is no less wrong. Back then it was also
formulated by the Haug school. Allegedly, Marxism-Leninism is not
"classical Marxism."

Sam
Webb's allegation of "simplification" of the ideas of Marx, Engels,
Lenin and other early Marxists in the form of "Marxism-Leninism" in the
Stalin era is simply wrong.

In
the Soviet Communist Party and the Communist International, after the
death of Lenin and long before the nonsensical enthronement of Stalin as
the "one true disciple of Lenin," acknowledgement began of Lenin as the
third classical author of Marxism.

The
careful processing, safeguarding and development of Lenin's theoretical
legacy by many CPSU and Comintern theorists are hidden by the Webb
theses in a way that ignores history.

The
general assertion that "Soviet scientists under Stalin's leadership
systematized and simplified earlier Marxist writing," not to mention
adapting it to the needs of Soviet state ideology, is nothing more than
repetition of the old anti-Soviet slogans.

There
were, in the course of seventy years of Soviet party history and
scientific history, numerous introductions to the academic and
theoretical papers of Marx, Engels and Lenin. They were simplifications,
just as in any scientific discipline there is simplification in all
introductions, compendia, and so forth. They are merely introductions.

In
no way was there systematic falsification of the inheritance. Even in
the post-socialist era, the collected works of classical authors have
still not finally emerged. This does not change the fact that, in a few
texts of Lenin, there also was one or another politically motivated
"editorial reworking" or omission, although this was justified and made
transparent.

It is not true that Marxism-Leninism was — or is — an impoverished, simplified version of the true Marxism.

Certainly
there was and is, in every theory and in all science, phases of greater
or lesser creativity and development. And undoubtedly there was and
will be future phases, just as in any scientific doctrine, in which
revolutionary Marxists/Communists do not evaluate promptly new social
and/or natural scientific phenomena. Or they do so too late. Or in a way
that is only partly correct. In general, it is the nature of science
that it moves in a contradictory manner between faster and slower stages
of development.

Webb's more far-reaching conclusion is that even what he designates as his new "Marxism" is only a "scientific method."

He
thinks his altogether limited and schematic scientific-theoretical view
surpasses the comprehensive legacy of the three classic founders of
Marxism-Leninism.

A
"method" which brings to light no apparent content, is worthless. And
in the thesis of Sam Webb, the method goes straight to this "new-old"
distinction and the rejection of content.

A German Version of Webb?
After the defeat of real socialism, the Left could not fail to weigh its
previous relationship with Lenin and Leninism. The PDS [Party of
Democratic Socialism] originating in a Marxist-Leninist party did this
too. It broke with its Leninist heritage. In May 1990 at a closed
meeting of the former PDS Executive Board, Gregor Gysi spoke about the
new theoretical basis of his reform-socialism-turned-political-party. In
this context, he explained both the departure from Marxism-Leninism and
the move to an "ideologically pluralistic" party in which the Communist
component would enjoy only a marginal existence, tolerated and allowed.

Thus
far the statements by Sam Webb are nothing new. The same applies to his
"new" concepts of organizational theory. They are in theory 27 ideas
presented to remodel the party structure into an informal communication
network, mainly Internet-based, whose members interact with each other
primarily via e-mail.

Abolition
of the unity principle and the commitment to the party program and
decisions amounts to a vote for the open liquidation of the Communist
Party.

Reassuring
evidence that the huge distances between widely scattered individual
U.S. Communists absolutely requires use of modern means of
communication, in this context, is not completely convincing.

It's clear Webb doesn't mean to modernize the lines of communication. Such modernization, of course, is useful and necessary.

This
is about something entirely different: the liquidation of a strong
organizational structure, clear criteria for party membership, a common
collectively developed program, binding revolutionary strategy and
tactics, and in general decisions grounding the party in the working
class, in working people, in the revolutionary youth and among oppressed
women, in production enterprises and scientific institutions, and in
the intelligentsia worn out by capital.

He
also thinks joining this structure existing only in cyberspace should
be slapdash - "no more difficult than joining other social
organizations." This is a logical consequence of the destruction of a
party once in political struggle against the capitalist system – a party
consisting of real, like-minded people coordinated with each other. The
party is downgraded to a loose, small electoral force primarily
concentrating on the support of the election campaigns of the Democratic
Party.

Sam Webb has still provided the remnants of a party. "Teams" will be traveling around as "meet and greet" and support groups.

This is nothing more than window dressing.

Does the U.S. workers' movement need such a party? I doubt it very much. But it has to decide for itself.

In
any case, German Communists do not need it. Nor do we need an
"open-ended and interesting" discussion of this plea for the end of
Marxism-Leninism and the Communist Party.

We have better and more important things to do.

Dr. Hans-Peter Brenner, a psychologist and psychotherapist, is a
member of the national leadership of the German Communist Party and
co-editor of Marxistische Blaetter. This article appeared July 9, 2011
in Junge Welt, a Marxist daily newspaper published in Berlin.

Subscribe To

We need a vanguard Communist Party USA - one that rejects the Imperialist 2-party monopoly, stands on its own two feet and fights for the working class in honesty and integrity.We used to be that party, and we can be again. But first we must purge the cancer of revisionism and Browderism from our ranks, that would have us betray our fellow workers to the Imperialist ruling class for the chance to sit at the table with them. We must carve it out, and taking a cue from William Z Foster, save our party by expelling those that seek to poison it.